Uri class and parser

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Friday, October 26, 2012 10:59:17 Jens Mueller wrote:
> > No. The issue is code breakage in the code of people using Phobos, and if
> > you change where the module is, you'll break code. Even if we provide a
> > deprecation path from std.uri to std.net.uri, that still means that
> > people will have to change their code eventually, meaning that you still
> > have code breakage (it's just better controlled). Making the change has
> > to be worth breaking people's code, and making breaking changes to Phobos
> > is becoming less and less acceptable. I don't know whether it is or isn't
> > acceptable in this case.
> 
> We should add the cost of fixing to the equation.

There's definitely some truth to that, but Walter in particular seems to be 
against breaking anything period. If it were entirely up to him, pretty much 
none of the breaking changes that have happened to Phobos' API over the last 
few years would have happened. And Andrei is beginning to oppose most breaking 
changes. So, the bar is getting pretty high for making breaking changes. 
Simply renaming stuff generally isn't going to cut it. This is arguably 
slightly more than simply renaming std.uri, because it's an issue of module 
organization rather than simply what its name is, but it's also arguably so 
trivial that the benefit is near zero.

I doubt that std.uri is a particularly heavily used module, but I have no idea 
how acceptable Walter or Andrei would find it to move it to std.net. In 
principle, it would be good, but in practice, I don't know. Whether it can 
happen or not probably comes down primarily to whether you can convince Andrei 
or not.

- Jonathan M Davis